Author
Topic: What would you do without Photoshop? (Read 6994 times)

Of course photographers used to alter their pictures in the dark room...every one knows this!!! Getting back to the OP perhaps photographers would take a little more time to at least try to get the shot right in camera. as Zack Arias says, if you hear yourself saying 'I will just fix that in Photoshop' then give yourself a slap!!

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I tend to try to get it right in the camera. While I do use some processing, generally I don't like spending a lot of time processing or I feel as if I'm not taking the picture right to begin with... or creating a reality through digital manipulation instead of optical manipulation.

Good example, recently I took a picture of a stone house in a forest. I wanted to give it a bit of a purple hue to make it look "enchanted". While I could have done this in Photoshop, instead I used a magenta gel over my flash. I dunno, it just feels better to be able to get it right without extensive post-processing - more of a challenge, more fun, less keyboard & mouse drudgery.

Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.

Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.

this +1000

people romanticize the film days and wet processes like they brought some unquestionable truth to the medium. it has always been about image capture --> image processing --> image presentation. nothing has changed in the fundamentals of photography...nothing.

how it is done is far less important than how well it is done.

4

Yes. Also, not everything can be gotten right in camera. Bord photography, for example... Most of it requires a lot of post processing. Read any of the major bird photography blogs, especially Birds As Art. I do grow tired of hearing the "well you could just get it right in camera" mantra spewed repeatedly...

I like to "work" with my digital negatives with Photoshop.It`s not a matter of fixing something, its the process of optimizing the material I have.Looking back to the darkroom days and even with some romantic memories I prefer the possibilities of today AND Photoshop.Better results. And this counts.Would be a drawback not using Photoshop.

Of course photographers used to alter their pictures in the dark room...every one knows this!!! Getting back to the OP perhaps photographers would take a little more time to at least try to get the shot right in camera. as Zack Arias says, if you hear yourself saying 'I will just fix that in Photoshop' then give yourself a slap!!

It depends on what you want to fix. Fixing someone's face to delete some pimples is desirable unless you want it there. Using ETTR (for shadows and DR), you also want to fix the exposure. Dodging and burning isn't exactly new. Meanwhile adding objects in your pictures that aren't there in the first place then that's the time you give yourself a slap.

Btw, ETTR isn't exactly getting the shot right in camera because you expose a little bit higher than desired and then just adjust in PP.

During this wedding season, there have been very few photos which needed photoshop. Most of my work this year have been completely edited and post processed in LR. It's fast and easy to edit 1000's of photos, where as Photoshop is more intended for single image editing. If Lightroom had the ability to render layers, I probably wouldn't need Photoshop anymore. I use PS so little these days, I haven't upgraded since CS4....I just haven't had the need.

I like to "work" with my digital negatives with Photoshop.It`s not a matter of fixing something, its the process of optimizing the material I have.Looking back to the darkroom days and even with some romantic memories I prefer the possibilities of today AND Photoshop.Better results. And this counts.Would be a drawback not using Photoshop.

Agree. Even with my comparatively limited PP skills, I love the creative aspect of PS/LR - usually subtly.

And-Rew

the same as i do now - because i own Adobe Lightroom which pretty much only deals with 'correcting' the exposure in much the same way you would do in a dark room - crop, straighten horizon, dodge, burn - you know, the basic stuff.

I'm not unappreciative of what can be done with Photoshop, and i believe it has its place - certainly excellent for restoring old battered prints etc, or digitising them for posterity etc, but i'm very much a SOOTC sort of photographer

Probably try PaintShop Pro X6 Ultimate, used to use PSP many years ago for other things not photography and have been wondering what it's like now, the price is the same as PSE so that's got to be good!